The fact that there's this wishy-washy "everyone's beliefs are sacred" PC bullshit culture is frankly irrelevant to what should be the case.
So what is wrong with pointing out that professing atheism is just as much a stsatement of belief?
Agnosticism is the scientific position. Atheism requires a leap of faith that there is nothing that you can't already see.
Fucking shitcock penis pump fuck-me-in-the-ass janissary, for the eleventy billionth time, while technically I am an agnostic, I am an agnostic with response to any claim in the absence of evidence. But since mouth-breathers like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, I refrain from saying I am agnostic because that implies there is a 50/50 chance that there is a God. The actual odds are literally on par with the odds that my cock has an extra-dimensional component that cannot be detected or seen but ejaculates Richard Simmons gym shorts every picosecond.
Fuck.
So you BELIEVE that there is no God, but for the purpose of pretending to be scientific, you'll admit to the slim chance of one.
That is STILL a fucking belief.
Agnosticism is not about odds and percentages. There is not enough (any) evidence in order to even calculate odds.
If you're unable to come to terms with your own beliefs then I'm sorry, but they ARE beliefs.
And if you constantly make the assumption that everyone else who doesn't agree with you are idiots, and talk down to them in ways that cover up what you are actually saying, it is NO WONDER than no one ever understands what the fuck you're saying.
Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are subcategories of atheism coined by George H. Smith (1979, p.13-18). Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" (i.e., those who have not thought about the existence of deities, let alone decide in favour of it, and are de facto atheists). Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it" (those who have thought about the existence of deities and have purposely decided against it), which, according to Smith, is sometimes characterized as antitheism.[1]
All of that is irrelevant to what we're talking about. That's merely talking about the thought-history of the person in question. Not the qualities and characteristics of belief and lack of belief.
As an agnostic, maybe I'm just a teensy bit offended that some "believer" is trying to pretend to be scientific.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
It's a pretty good fucking indicator.
Hey, Evander! Are you agnostic with respect to Mother Theresa's space ship?
There have been plenty of things throughout the history of science which were not evident to one generation, but became evident to later generations. Do you truely believe that right now, in the year 2008, a bunch of hairless apes on some backwater planet in the milkyway galaxy possess all universal/multiversal/omniversal knowledge, with full evidence on all things that have ever existed?
You are not seriously arguing this. The idea of a God is specifically constructed so as never to offer evidence for its existence. It is "above" evidence. It is not scientific or logical to entertain such a belief.
The idea of the superiority of man is a religious one, but apparently you've been borrowing it too.
Stop blabbing.
What do I have to do with Mother Theresa? I think I've made it clear in the past that I am anything BUT agnostifc when it comes, specifically, to the Christian religion.
So you BELIEVE that there is no God, but for the purpose of pretending to be scientific, you'll admit to the slim chance of one.
That is STILL a fucking belief.
So you have a belief there is no Mother Theresa Enterprise?
Agnosticism is not about odds and percentages. There is not enough (any) evidence in order to even calculate odds.
That is patently false. The complete and utter lack of evidence is itself overwhelming evidence.
If you're unable to come to terms with your own beliefs then I'm sorry, but they ARE beliefs.
That's cute.
And if you constantly make the assumption that everyone else who don't agree with you are idiots, and talk down to them in ways that cover up what you are actually saying, it is NO WONDER than no one ever understands what the fuck you're saying.
That is also cute. I don't think anyone on these boards is an idiot. Not you, not even LondonBridge, though sometimes I wonder.
I am arguing against the position you put forth vehemently.
Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are subcategories of atheism coined by George H. Smith (1979, p.13-18). Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" (i.e., those who have not thought about the existence of deities, let alone decide in favour of it, and are de facto atheists). Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it" (those who have thought about the existence of deities and have purposely decided against it), which, according to Smith, is sometimes characterized as antitheism.[1]
All of that is irrelevant to what we're talking about. That's merely talking about the thought-history of the person in question. Not the qualities and characteristics of belief and lack of belief.
Rejecting belief in a diety/god/giant marshmallow is a belief.
Never thinking about it or answering that question? thats not a belief
So you BELIEVE that there is no God, but for the purpose of pretending to be scientific, you'll admit to the slim chance of one.
That is STILL a fucking belief.
So you have a belief there is no Mother Theresa Enterprise?
Agnosticism is not about odds and percentages. There is not enough (any) evidence in order to even calculate odds.
That is patently false. The complete and utter lack of evidence is itself overwhelming evidence.
If you're unable to come to terms with your own beliefs then I'm sorry, but they ARE beliefs.
That's cute.
And if you constantly make the assumption that everyone else who don't agree with you are idiots, and talk down to them in ways that cover up what you are actually saying, it is NO WONDER than no one ever understands what the fuck you're saying.
That is also cute. I don't think anyone on these boards is an idiot. Not you, not even LondonBridge, though sometimes I wonder.
I am arguing against the position you put forth vehemently.
Where I'm from, "mouth breather" means idiot, but I guess you can't even keep your own ad hominems straight.
And worshipping Occam's Razor still counts as worship.
...and in conclusion, MikeMan and I could get married to each other, and Evander and geckhan can get married to each other, but MikeMan should never, ever marry geckhan or Evander.
Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are subcategories of atheism coined by George H. Smith (1979, p.13-18). Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" (i.e., those who have not thought about the existence of deities, let alone decide in favour of it, and are de facto atheists). Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it" (those who have thought about the existence of deities and have purposely decided against it), which, according to Smith, is sometimes characterized as antitheism.[1]
All of that is irrelevant to what we're talking about. That's merely talking about the thought-history of the person in question. Not the qualities and characteristics of belief and lack of belief.
Rejecting belief in a diety/god/giant marshmallow is a belief.
Never thinking about it or answering that question? thats not a belief
That last part is true but again, it is not relevent to this discussion. That just means a person doesn't think about it. I would not describe a person who doesn't think about udon noodles a-udonist. They just don't think about the goddamned things.
The first part is more worthy of discussion. Let's look at how you're phrasing this:
Rejecting belief in a diety/god/giant marshmallow is a belief.
Boom, right off the bat, you're committing a linguistic error. In a logical or philosophical sense, it is not "rejecting" to say there is no God. Any more than it is "rejecting" anything to say there is no flying spaghetti monster. You do not have to reject anything to be atheist. You just have to not believe in what others believe in. Atheism is a belief like baldness is a hair color.
Now, in the overall societal sense, the idea of God is so caught up and saturated with our culture and customs that, societally speaking, most people do end up "rejecting" the notion. But that is not the same as saying you are logically rejecting the idea of a God. It is not necessary to do so.
And mother Theresa's spaceship? I think that yes, we can disprove that.
How do you disprove that?
Because she resided in our observable sphere and we have no evidence that she produced or launched a spaceship?
Something that would take a signifacnt amount of time and money to do and - you know - she was busy in Calcutta, India
She could have died, assumed a new form of pure energy, and then financed the space ship with help from aliens, who helped her launch it from their conveniently undetectable extra-solar orbital station.
So - if saying there is no God/A pink panda/A big yellow ball that poops out universes/etc. doesn't constitute atheism, then what would you like to call it?
And mother Theresa's spaceship? I think that yes, we can disprove that.
How do you disprove that?
Because she resided in our observable sphere and we have no evidence that she produced or launched a spaceship?
Something that would take a signifacnt amount of time and money to do and - you know - she was busy in Calcutta, India
She could have died, assumed a new form of pure energy, and then financed the space ship with help from aliens, who helped her launch it from their conveniently undetectable extra-solar orbital station.
So, how can we disprove that, then?
why would we want to disprove that?
We certainly couldn't. yet. But one day we might be able to. But the thing we will never get to prove or disprove is anything that exists outside of our universe.
Where I'm from, "mouth breather" means idiot, but I guess you can't even keep your own ad hominems straight.
An ad hominem would be if I were to say you were wrong because "reason X", where "reason X" was an insult unrelated to the discussion.
But thanks for trying.
And worshipping Occam's Razor still counts as worship.
Aw, deary me! I guess I just worship logic, then.
Silly, that.
Occam's Razor isn't a rule, it's a trend.
And you DID use ad hominem. Take a look at your own sentance structure:
But since mouth-breathers like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, I refrain from saying I am agnostic because that implies there is a 50/50 chance that there is a God.
Had you simply just called me a fucking mouth breather and left it at that, then no, it wouldn't have been ad hominem.
Why did you ignore my other comment before the one that you quoted, though? Is the fact that I believe Christianity to be a load of BS something you have no response to?
And mother Theresa's spaceship? I think that yes, we can disprove that.
How do you disprove that?
Because she resided in our observable sphere and we have no evidence that she produced or launched a spaceship?
Something that would take a signifacnt amount of time and money to do and - you know - she was busy in Calcutta, India
Yes, but how can you know!! There's always the possibility! If you don't believe in the Mother Theresa Enterprise then you are ACTIVELY BELIEVING that it didn't exist! It's almost like WORSHIPPING parsimony and reason! A religion of unbelief unto itself!
And mother Theresa's spaceship? I think that yes, we can disprove that.
How do you disprove that?
Because she resided in our observable sphere and we have no evidence that she produced or launched a spaceship?
Something that would take a signifacnt amount of time and money to do and - you know - she was busy in Calcutta, India
Yes, but how can you know!! There's always the possibility! If you don't believe in the Mother Theresa Enterprise then you are ACTIVELY BELIEVING that it didn't exist!
I've fucking got you now, haven't I?
Yes, yes you have. I think this means the argument is over. All right, was good talking with you fellows.
And you DID use ad hominem. Take a look at your own sentance structure:
But since mouth-breathers like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, I refrain from saying I am agnostic because that implies there is a 50/50 chance that there is a God.
Had you simply just called me a fucking mouth breather and left it at that, then no, it wouldn't have been ad hominem.
I called you a mouth breather and said you don't know what you're talking about.
Why did you ignore my other comment before the one that you quoted, though? Is the fact that I believe Christianity to be a load of BS something you have no response to?
I simply missed it.
To be logically consistent you must be agnostic with respect to Christianity, and Buddhism, and Islam, and Judaism, and Scientology, and Mormonism.
And mother Theresa's spaceship? I think that yes, we can disprove that.
How do you disprove that?
Because she resided in our observable sphere and we have no evidence that she produced or launched a spaceship?
Something that would take a signifacnt amount of time and money to do and - you know - she was busy in Calcutta, India
She could have died, assumed a new form of pure energy, and then financed the space ship with help from aliens, who helped her launch it from their conveniently undetectable extra-solar orbital station.
So, how can we disprove that, then?
why would we want to disprove that?
We certainly couldn't. yet. But one day we might be able to. But the thing we will never get to prove or disprove is anything that exists outside of our universe.
So here we come to the whole point. The idea of God is constructed in such a way that you cannot really say anything about it. So there's no reason to believe in it, and a lack of belief in it is not some alternate religion. It's just the default state.
And you DID use ad hominem. Take a look at your own sentance structure:
But since mouth-breathers like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, I refrain from saying I am agnostic because that implies there is a 50/50 chance that there is a God.
Had you simply just called me a fucking mouth breather and left it at that, then no, it wouldn't have been ad hominem.
I called you a mouth breather and said you don't know what you're talking about.
Why did you ignore my other comment before the one that you quoted, though? Is the fact that I believe Christianity to be a load of BS something you have no response to?
I simply missed it.
To be logically consistent you must be agnostic with respect to Christianity, and Buddhism, and Islam, and Judaism, and Scientology, and Mormonism.
Are you really that unfamiliar with how Occam's razor works? It DOES NOT give you the answer, it simply presents you with the likeliest answer. The razor can be used to justify why you chose to make a leap of faith, but it does not magically make any decision pure logic.
And not all religions are equally likely. Agnosticism is not an all or nothing proposition, regardless of how many times you try to minimize it. Christianity requires a strict belief that certain things listed in a book absolutely occured, and I think that many of those things are just plain crazy. The idea that a god might exist, though, I see that as a possibility. Also religions that are left open to human interpretation, such as Judaism, are a bit more possible, although not neccessarily in their entiretyt.
Are you really that unfamiliar with how Occam's razor works? It DOES NOT give you the answer, it simply presents you with the likeliest answer. The razor can be used to justify why you chose to make a leap of faith, but it does not magically make any decision pure logic.
I know what Occam's razor is, but thank you for the lecture.
And not all religions are equally likely. Agnosticism is not an all or nothing proposition, regardless of how many times you try to minimize it. Christianity requires a strict belief that certain things listed in a book absolutely occured, and I think that many of those things are just plain crazy. The idea that a god might exist, though, I see that as a possibility. Also religions that are left open to human interpretation, such as Judaism, are a bit more possible, although not neccessarily in their entiretyt.
The fact that you think Judaism is more likely than Christianity is unbelievable. It's also a screaming example of your bias.
I could get into much further detail about why deism is just as unlikely as Christianity, but maybe in another thread. This is already off topic.
The guy is playing semanticsin order to prove a point.
He also mkes a statement that christians jews and muslims all believe in the same god, which is false. the religions may have the same roots, and some may believe in thegods of others, but Jews DO NOT believe in the Christian god.
Evander on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
The guy is playing semanticsin order to prove a point.
He also mkes a statement that christians jews and muslims all believe in the same god, which is false. the religions may have the same roots, and some may believe in thegods of others, but Jews DO NOT believe in the Christian god.
Isn't the biggest different that Jews don't believe that Christ was the Messiah? I mean, seems like the same god to me.
A belief system is a "faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society." This is simpler than an ideology or philosophy because it's just a group of beliefs; they don't have to be interconnected and they don't have to provide guidance. This still doesn't describe atheism; even if we narrowed atheism to denying the existence of gods, that's still just one belief and a single belief is not a set of beliefs. Theism is also a single belief that is not a belief system. Both theism and atheism are part of belief systems, though.
The guy is playing semanticsin order to prove a point.
He also mkes a statement that christians jews and muslims all believe in the same god, which is false. the religions may have the same roots, and some may believe in thegods of others, but Jews DO NOT believe in the Christian god.
Isn't the biggest different that Jews don't believe that Christ was the Messiah? I mean, seems like the same god to me.
Well, theres the trinity to think of.
Plus you know, the christian god is nothing like the OT god.
The guy is playing semanticsin order to prove a point.
He also mkes a statement that christians jews and muslims all believe in the same god, which is false. the religions may have the same roots, and some may believe in thegods of others, but Jews DO NOT believe in the Christian god.
Isn't the biggest different that Jews don't believe that Christ was the Messiah? I mean, seems like the same god to me.
Well, theres the trinity to think of.
Plus you know, the christian god is nothing like the OT god.
Except for the minor detail of Christians including the entire OT as part of their theology. Which where it gets the name you're using.
The guy is playing semanticsin order to prove a point.
He also mkes a statement that christians jews and muslims all believe in the same god, which is false. the religions may have the same roots, and some may believe in thegods of others, but Jews DO NOT believe in the Christian god.
Isn't the biggest different that Jews don't believe that Christ was the Messiah? I mean, seems like the same god to me.
Well, theres the trinity to think of.
Plus you know, the christian god is nothing like the OT god.
Except for the minor detail of Christians including the entire OT as part of their theology. Which where it gets the name you're using.
Yes. so the christian god is the jewish god - in the christian faith.
but the christian god is not the jewish god - in the jewish faith.
And Islam incorporates all three. Good try trying to like burn me or someting.
The guy is playing semanticsin order to prove a point.
He also mkes a statement that christians jews and muslims all believe in the same god, which is false. the religions may have the same roots, and some may believe in thegods of others, but Jews DO NOT believe in the Christian god.
In the linked articles, he admits that there are two definitions for atheists, disbelief and denial, but arbitrarily assigns higher value to the disbelief definition, ignoring the other one. Atheism has a sloppy definition, hence why further clarifications, such as agnostic and weak/strong atheism are in common usage. There is no one perfect definition for atheism that is commonly accepted, so making a semantic argument is unlikely to produce results.
Even if we accept only the "disbelief" definition of atheism, I don't agree with his binary choice of "belief" or "disbelief." Just like there's another option aside from yes and no (unsure), there's another option besides belief and disbelief (agnostic). In common usage, it identifies that there is a "surety" scale that has absolute belief at end, absolute disbelief at the other, and agnosticism in the middle.
Trying to be more precise than that isn't useful. What's more important is how people perceive themselves on an issue, not where they lie on an arbitrary scale of belief. Saying conclusively, "there's no such thing as agnosticism" is only true for a very specially defined set of terms that defies common usage and doesn't help communication. It just muddies the waters with a semantic mess.
Trying to be more precise than that isn't useful. What's more important is how people perceive themselves on an issue, not where they lie on an arbitrary scale of belief. Saying conclusively, "there's no such thing as agnosticism" is only true for a very specially defined set of terms that defies common usage and doesn't help communication. It just muddies the waters with a semantic mess.
In that website he never said there is no such thing as agnosticism.
Trying to be more precise than that isn't useful. What's more important is how people perceive themselves on an issue, not where they lie on an arbitrary scale of belief. Saying conclusively, "there's no such thing as agnosticism" is only true for a very specially defined set of terms that defies common usage and doesn't help communication. It just muddies the waters with a semantic mess.
In that website he never said there is no such thing as agnosticism.
ViolentChemistry said so a couple pages back (probably should have quoted it directly). It was an example of how getting caught up on nomenclature, rather than actual positions, can inhibit the conversation from progressing.
Trying to be more precise than that isn't useful. What's more important is how people perceive themselves on an issue, not where they lie on an arbitrary scale of belief. Saying conclusively, "there's no such thing as agnosticism" is only true for a very specially defined set of terms that defies common usage and doesn't help communication. It just muddies the waters with a semantic mess.
In that website he never said there is no such thing as agnosticism.
ViolentChemistry said so a couple pages back (probably should have quoted it directly). It was an example of how getting caught up on nomenclature, rather than actual positions, can inhibit the conversation from progressing.
Much like the last two pages or so.
Argus on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited June 2008
Well, there 's a lot of stupid going on here, which isn't even tangentially related to the original topic...
Occam's Razor is indeed a rule - parsimony is a property of rational beliefs. Less parsimonious = not in keeping with the Razor = not rational.
Unless you misunderstand what rationality is, then that should be utterly clear and uncontroversial. Rationality doesn't lead to conclusions "guaranteed to be correct" it leads to "well reasoned belief". An illustration of its really being a "rule" after all is this - any conjuction is inherently less likely than at least one of its conjuncts, do a probability calculation and it's immediately clear what I mean. Some Proposition A has a probability of 0.5 and some other has a probability of 0.9, the probability of A&B is thus 0.45 (Baysian analyses et al are more complicated mathematically but show the same thing). Thus, if A&B and B alone both explain the data we have available equally well, B is the more rational choice.
Secondly, atheism is the default position because it's the basic rational position, not because it's the first position anyone holds, so all this implicit/explicit nonsense can eat a dick. There are a myriad of possibilities which are mutually exclusive to the existence of deities for which we have equivalent reasons for believing (i.e. none whatsoever) - as such we can beliefs in the existence of deities are hugely more likely to false than to be true, and thus the base position we are to take is that of atheism.
Agnosticism is not an all or nothing proposition, regardless of how many times you try to minimize it.
Only if you're talking about the "there is currently insufficient evidence to believe in God" position and not the "it's not possible to know if God exists" position.
The guy is playing semanticsin order to prove a point.
He also mkes a statement that christians jews and muslims all believe in the same god, which is false. the religions may have the same roots, and some may believe in thegods of others, but Jews DO NOT believe in the Christian god.
it's all the same shit, the differences are negligible things blown out of proportion by nuts.
it doesn't fucking matter if jebus was a prophet or the son of god.
Posts
So you BELIEVE that there is no God, but for the purpose of pretending to be scientific, you'll admit to the slim chance of one.
That is STILL a fucking belief.
Agnosticism is not about odds and percentages. There is not enough (any) evidence in order to even calculate odds.
If you're unable to come to terms with your own beliefs then I'm sorry, but they ARE beliefs.
And if you constantly make the assumption that everyone else who doesn't agree with you are idiots, and talk down to them in ways that cover up what you are actually saying, it is NO WONDER than no one ever understands what the fuck you're saying.
All of that is irrelevant to what we're talking about. That's merely talking about the thought-history of the person in question. Not the qualities and characteristics of belief and lack of belief.
And mother Theresa's spaceship? I think that yes, we can disprove that.
What do I have to do with Mother Theresa? I think I've made it clear in the past that I am anything BUT agnostifc when it comes, specifically, to the Christian religion.
So you have a belief there is no Mother Theresa Enterprise? That is patently false. The complete and utter lack of evidence is itself overwhelming evidence.
That's cute.
That is also cute. I don't think anyone on these boards is an idiot. Not you, not even LondonBridge, though sometimes I wonder.
I am arguing against the position you put forth vehemently.
Rejecting belief in a diety/god/giant marshmallow is a belief.
Never thinking about it or answering that question? thats not a belief
How do you disprove that?
Where I'm from, "mouth breather" means idiot, but I guess you can't even keep your own ad hominems straight.
And worshipping Occam's Razor still counts as worship.
Because she resided in our observable sphere and we have no evidence that she produced or launched a spaceship?
Something that would take a signifacnt amount of time and money to do and - you know - she was busy in Calcutta, India
I agree. Want to start a thread about it?
That last part is true but again, it is not relevent to this discussion. That just means a person doesn't think about it. I would not describe a person who doesn't think about udon noodles a-udonist. They just don't think about the goddamned things.
The first part is more worthy of discussion. Let's look at how you're phrasing this:
Boom, right off the bat, you're committing a linguistic error. In a logical or philosophical sense, it is not "rejecting" to say there is no God. Any more than it is "rejecting" anything to say there is no flying spaghetti monster. You do not have to reject anything to be atheist. You just have to not believe in what others believe in. Atheism is a belief like baldness is a hair color.
Now, in the overall societal sense, the idea of God is so caught up and saturated with our culture and customs that, societally speaking, most people do end up "rejecting" the notion. But that is not the same as saying you are logically rejecting the idea of a God. It is not necessary to do so.
An ad hominem would be if I were to say you were wrong because "reason X", where "reason X" was an insult unrelated to the discussion.
But thanks for trying.
Aw, deary me! I guess I just worship logic, then.
Silly, that.
She could have died, assumed a new form of pure energy, and then financed the space ship with help from aliens, who helped her launch it from their conveniently undetectable extra-solar orbital station.
So, how can we disprove that, then?
why would we want to disprove that?
We certainly couldn't. yet. But one day we might be able to. But the thing we will never get to prove or disprove is anything that exists outside of our universe.
Occam's Razor isn't a rule, it's a trend.
And you DID use ad hominem. Take a look at your own sentance structure:
Had you simply just called me a fucking mouth breather and left it at that, then no, it wouldn't have been ad hominem.
Why did you ignore my other comment before the one that you quoted, though? Is the fact that I believe Christianity to be a load of BS something you have no response to?
I've fucking got you now, haven't I?!!
Yes, yes you have. I think this means the argument is over. All right, was good talking with you fellows.
Just a fad, huh?
I called you a mouth breather and said you don't know what you're talking about.
I simply missed it.
To be logically consistent you must be agnostic with respect to Christianity, and Buddhism, and Islam, and Judaism, and Scientology, and Mormonism.
So here we come to the whole point. The idea of God is constructed in such a way that you cannot really say anything about it. So there's no reason to believe in it, and a lack of belief in it is not some alternate religion. It's just the default state.
Are you really that unfamiliar with how Occam's razor works? It DOES NOT give you the answer, it simply presents you with the likeliest answer. The razor can be used to justify why you chose to make a leap of faith, but it does not magically make any decision pure logic.
And not all religions are equally likely. Agnosticism is not an all or nothing proposition, regardless of how many times you try to minimize it. Christianity requires a strict belief that certain things listed in a book absolutely occured, and I think that many of those things are just plain crazy. The idea that a god might exist, though, I see that as a possibility. Also religions that are left open to human interpretation, such as Judaism, are a bit more possible, although not neccessarily in their entiretyt.
I know what Occam's razor is, but thank you for the lecture.
The fact that you think Judaism is more likely than Christianity is unbelievable. It's also a screaming example of your bias.
I could get into much further detail about why deism is just as unlikely as Christianity, but maybe in another thread. This is already off topic.
It does not require faith.
The guy is playing semanticsin order to prove a point.
He also mkes a statement that christians jews and muslims all believe in the same god, which is false. the religions may have the same roots, and some may believe in thegods of others, but Jews DO NOT believe in the Christian god.
Isn't the biggest different that Jews don't believe that Christ was the Messiah? I mean, seems like the same god to me.
Atheism is not a religion, philosophy, ideology, or a belief system.
Atheism vs Agnosticism
Language matters.
Well, theres the trinity to think of.
Plus you know, the christian god is nothing like the OT god.
awesome
Except for the minor detail of Christians including the entire OT as part of their theology. Which where it gets the name you're using.
Yes. so the christian god is the jewish god - in the christian faith.
but the christian god is not the jewish god - in the jewish faith.
And Islam incorporates all three. Good try trying to like burn me or someting.
In the linked articles, he admits that there are two definitions for atheists, disbelief and denial, but arbitrarily assigns higher value to the disbelief definition, ignoring the other one. Atheism has a sloppy definition, hence why further clarifications, such as agnostic and weak/strong atheism are in common usage. There is no one perfect definition for atheism that is commonly accepted, so making a semantic argument is unlikely to produce results.
Even if we accept only the "disbelief" definition of atheism, I don't agree with his binary choice of "belief" or "disbelief." Just like there's another option aside from yes and no (unsure), there's another option besides belief and disbelief (agnostic). In common usage, it identifies that there is a "surety" scale that has absolute belief at end, absolute disbelief at the other, and agnosticism in the middle.
Trying to be more precise than that isn't useful. What's more important is how people perceive themselves on an issue, not where they lie on an arbitrary scale of belief. Saying conclusively, "there's no such thing as agnosticism" is only true for a very specially defined set of terms that defies common usage and doesn't help communication. It just muddies the waters with a semantic mess.
In that website he never said there is no such thing as agnosticism.
ViolentChemistry said so a couple pages back (probably should have quoted it directly). It was an example of how getting caught up on nomenclature, rather than actual positions, can inhibit the conversation from progressing.
Much like the last two pages or so.
Occam's Razor is indeed a rule - parsimony is a property of rational beliefs. Less parsimonious = not in keeping with the Razor = not rational.
Unless you misunderstand what rationality is, then that should be utterly clear and uncontroversial. Rationality doesn't lead to conclusions "guaranteed to be correct" it leads to "well reasoned belief". An illustration of its really being a "rule" after all is this - any conjuction is inherently less likely than at least one of its conjuncts, do a probability calculation and it's immediately clear what I mean. Some Proposition A has a probability of 0.5 and some other has a probability of 0.9, the probability of A&B is thus 0.45 (Baysian analyses et al are more complicated mathematically but show the same thing). Thus, if A&B and B alone both explain the data we have available equally well, B is the more rational choice.
Secondly, atheism is the default position because it's the basic rational position, not because it's the first position anyone holds, so all this implicit/explicit nonsense can eat a dick. There are a myriad of possibilities which are mutually exclusive to the existence of deities for which we have equivalent reasons for believing (i.e. none whatsoever) - as such we can beliefs in the existence of deities are hugely more likely to false than to be true, and thus the base position we are to take is that of atheism.
Only if you're talking about the "there is currently insufficient evidence to believe in God" position and not the "it's not possible to know if God exists" position.
it's all the same shit, the differences are negligible things blown out of proportion by nuts.
it doesn't fucking matter if jebus was a prophet or the son of god.